debuff saving throws

[joaber]

I would like to point all features, spells, items that let you debuff enemies saving throws. Can you guys help me?

Class Features:
Eldritch Knight - Eldritch Strike - Disadvantage in the next ST from your spell
Arcane Trickster - Magical Ambush - Disadvantage in the next ST from your spel
Sorcerer - Heightened Spell - disadvantage in one ST from the spell casted
Wild Magic - Bend Luck - subtract 1d4 from one ST
Wizard Divination Savant - Portent - replace the ST result for your portent die


Spells
Bane - subtract 1d4 in any ST
Bestow Curse - disadvantage in one ST at your choice
Contagion - disadvantage in one ST
Otto’s Irresistible Dance - disadvantage in dex ST
Slow - -2 in dex ST


Conditions:
Restrained - disadvantage in dex ST
paralyzed, petrified, stunned, or unconscious - auto fail Dex or Str ST

Unearthed Arcana
Shadow Sorcerer - Hound of Ill Omen - disadvantage in all ST of your spells for one target
Order of the Awakened - Psychic Surge - disadvantage in one ST against one of your discipline or talent

[MaxWilson]

All the ones I can think of, you already have in your list.

[Lines]

The shadow sorcerer's hound and the awakened mystic's feature where they use up their focus both do, but they're from UA.

On that note, why are there so few ways to debuff saving throws? It's basically the spell version of having advantage on your attacks and there are like a billion ways to get advantage, some of which are spectacularly easy. Why is it so hard to get the same going for spells?

[Flashy]

On that note, why are there so few ways to debuff saving throws? It's basically the spell version of having advantage on your attacks and there are like a billion ways to get advantage, some of which are spectacularly easy. Why is it so hard to get the same going for spells?

I suspect the reason is that failing any given spell's saving throw is usually substantially worse than being hit by any particular attack. Being hit by a paladin who burns a 1st level spell to smite is painful, but usually not as painful as failing your Hold Person saving throw. Being shot by a rogue for many d6 of sneak attack damage hurts, but less than failing the saving throw on Disintigrate.

[Lines]

I suspect the reason is that failing any given spell's saving throw is usually substantially worse than being hit by any particular attack. Being hit by a paladin who burns a 1st level spell to smite is painful, but usually not as painful as failing your Hold Person saving throw. Being shot by a rogue for many d6 of sneak attack damage hurts, but less than failing the saving throw on Disintigrate.

So they're basically flat out admitting that they made casters better than martials, once again? It's very easy to get advantage for your entire turn's worth of attacks, but almost impossible to get the equivalent for a turn of spell(s).

[Flashy]

So they're basically flat out admitting that they made casters better than martials, once again? It's very easy to get advantage for your entire turn's worth of attacks, but almost impossible to get the equivalent for a turn of spell(s).

It's almost like that's part of the process intended to balance at will attacks against big flashy save or suck options.

[Lines]

It's almost like that's part of the process intended to balance at will attacks against big flashy save or suck options.

But it's not just big flashy save of suck options. If you're at the point where you have a spell for pretty much every round of the day and you're using a level two spell because you might as well, you still can't get the easy advantage a martial class would have. In addition there are plenty of limited use resources martials have to boost themselves and they can still easily gain advantage on them.

[Malifice]

So they're basically flat out admitting that they made casters better than martials, once again?

Perhaps this is a design philosophy (like avoiding fixed bonuses) to balance spell use that is inherent in the system?

Like how spellcasting requires finite long rest resource expenditure while axe smahing rarely does.

[Lines]

Perhaps this is a design philosophy (like avoiding fixed bonuses) to balance spell use that is inherent in the system?

Like how spellcasting requires finite long rest resource expenditure while axe smahing rarely does.
But that's not the case. It is possible, you can do things like have a sorcerer heighten every big flashy spell he casts (and in fact that works better with big flashy high level spells, since it's three points either way) - it's just that they made it pointlessly difficult. Ways to cause disadvantage exist, and in fact pretty much all of them just have a flat cost instead of being related to how powerful the effect will be, they just made it weirdly sparse.

[Malifice]

But that's not the case. It is possible, you can do things like have a sorcerer heighten every big flashy spell he casts (and in fact that works better with big flashy high level spells, since it's three points either way)

You can indeed, but that is balanced against the rest/ resource limitation. Another balancing mechanism that is inherent in the system.

Blowing 3 SP + Spell slot on flashy spell is very resource intensive, and certainly not something that is going to carry your standard 6-8 encounter adventuring day.

[Flashy]

But that's not the case. It is possible, you can do things like have a sorcerer heighten every big flashy spell he casts (and in fact that works better with big flashy high level spells, since it's three points either way) - it's just that they made it pointlessly difficult. Ways to cause disadvantage exist, and in fact pretty much all of them just have a flat cost instead of being related to how powerful the effect will be, they just made it weirdly sparse.

They can do it once for every three levels they have, and they're trading off every other kind of caster flexibility in the book to do it. It's not that disadvantage on saving throws is grossly too powerful to every be allowed, but that the system recognizes that it's often more powerful to be able to inflict disadvantage on a saving throw than it is to grant advantage on an attack roll. It can be done, but it's not a free lunch.

[Lines]

You can indeed, but that is balanced against the rest/ resource limitation. Another balancing mechanism that is inherent in the system.

Blowing 3 SP + Spell slot on flashy spell is very resource intensive, and certainly not something that is going to carry your standard 6-8 encounter adventuring day.

Except that's not standard. That's an idiotic standard, only a small percentage or stories are going to fit 6-8 combat encounters in per day without sacrificing the integrity of the plot - the game is supposed to support the DM's story (for narrative games) or world (for simulationist games), the DM is not supposed to have to twist their story or world to support the game.

Seriously, think about stories as they are told. There will be some with 6 to 8 - obviously not every day in Lord of the Rings had 6-8 encounters in it, but I'd say a few like the battle of Helm's Deep would come close. Even there, imagine how it would be if after the skirmish at Weathertop and the flight to Rivendell the DM threw another 4 to 6 encounters in not because the story needed it (it would make no sense in the story whatsoever) but because the game apparently had to have them.

Encounter with Sirius Black, defense of previous self against dementors then the rescue of Buckbeak? Sorry Harry, I know it doesn't make any sense but we're going to need you to have another 3 to 5 encounters before the day is done or things won't be balanced. Now Rand you did well leading the charge into Caemlyn and then defeating Rahvin but there will need to be at least four more trolloc attacks before you go to sleep because that's a good way to balance an edition. Hey good job fighting in that huge battle and then duelling Murtagh, Eragon - but I'm afraid your day is not even half done.

[Flashy]

Except that's not standard. That's an idiotic standard, only a small percentage or stories are going to fit 6-8 combat encounters in per day without sacrificing the integrity of the plot - the game is supposed to support the DM's story (for narrative games) or world (for simulationist games), the DM is not supposed to have to twist their story or world to support the game.

However you feel about the short rest/long rest dynamic for an adventuring day I still think it's reasonable to make disadvantage on saving throws harder to confer than advantage on attack rolls is to gain. At the end of the day 5e is a system firmly planted in (some largely pretty solid) asymmetric balance. It's written with the understanding that failing a saving throw will often be more dangerous than being hit by an attack, and that's largely reflected in the different advantage/disadvantage rules for the two sets of actions.

This edition is largely targeted at the segment of the tabletop audience that prefers that spellcasters should have powerful limited use options. This is one of the ways 5e works to allow that in a way that keeps martials relevant.

[Malifice]

Except that's not standard.

Yes it is. The DMG expressly states that long rest resources are expected to last 6-8 encounters, during which you get around 2 short rest recharges.

If your sorcerer wants to spam nova heightened spells of max level, all he does is make 2 encounters much easier for the party, and the remaining 4-6 much harder.


That's an idiotic standard, only a small percentage or stories are going to fit 6-8 combat encounters in per day without sacrificing the integrity of the plot - the game is supposed to support the DM's story (for narrative games) or world (for simulationist games), the DM is not supposed to have to twist their story or world to support the game.

And the DMG gives you an option for such stories - the longer rest variant.

Again - the rules support class balance. Its your decision not to use the rules that have been provided (or to deviate from the games recomended rest pacing) that throws the rules out and creates caster/ martial imbalance.


Seriously, think about stories as they are told. There will be some with 6 to 8 - obviously not every day in Lord of the Rings had 6-8 encounters in it, but I'd say a few like the battle of Helm's Deep would come close. Even there, imagine how it would be if after the skirmish at Weathertop and the flight to Rivendell the DM threw another 4 to 6 encounters in not because the story needed it (it would make no sense in the story whatsoever) but because the game apparently had to have them.

Why is it always absolutes with this argument. You dont alwuys enforce a 6-8 encounters /2 short rest AD on your party - thats the baseline from which you build around. Some adventuring days will have more encounters, some less, some none. Some will allow for more short rests, some less, some none.

As long as 6-8/2 is your baseline, you're fine. My current Age of Worms campaign I run (converted from 3.5) has hit 7th level and the 6-8/ 2 short rest paradigm is working fine. They dealt with the 6-8 encoutner AD in the Whispering cairn (they had a time limit before the other 3 adventurers discovered the ruins), the three faces of evil dungeon (the cultists sent for reinforcements so the party had limited time to clean it out), the lizard man lair in the swamp (save the captured sorcereres before the lizard men eat her), a conversion of the lost island of castanamir (escape the dungeon in 3 days or be marooned on the island) etc.


Encounter with Sirius Black, defense of previous self against dementors then the rescue of Buckbeak? Sorry Harry, I know it doesn't make any sense but we're going to need you to have another 3 to 5 encounters before the day is done or things won't be balanced. Now Rand you did well leading the charge into Caemlyn and then defeating Rahvin but there will need to be at least four more trolloc attacks before you go to sleep because that's a good way to balance an edition. Hey good job fighting in that huge battle and then duelling Murtagh, Eragon - but I'm afraid your day is not even half done.

Now youre just being obtuse.

[Zalabim]

The slow spell gives victims -2 on dexterity saves.
The restrained condition gives disadvantage on dexterity saves. Fireball that web.
A creature that is paralyzed, petrified, stunned, or unconscious automatically fails dexterity or strength saving throws. After a stunning strike, the Open Hand monk tosses you around like a ragdoll.

[Malifice]

The slow spell gives victims -2 on dexterity saves.
The restrained condition gives disadvantage on dexterity saves. Fireball that web.
A creature that is paralyzed, petrified, stunned, or unconscious automatically fails dexterity or strength saving throws. After a stunning strike, the Open Hand monk tosses you around like a ragdoll.

Makes that 3 level BM dip on an OHM even more nice.

[JackPhoenix]

Except that's not standard. That's an idiotic standard, only a small percentage or stories are going to fit 6-8 combat encounters in per day without sacrificing the integrity of the plot - the game is supposed to support the DM's story (for narrative games) or world (for simulationist games), the DM is not supposed to have to twist their story or world to support the game.

Seriously, think about stories as they are told. There will be some with 6 to 8 - obviously not every day in Lord of the Rings had 6-8 encounters in it, but I'd say a few like the battle of Helm's Deep would come close. Even there, imagine how it would be if after the skirmish at Weathertop and the flight to Rivendell the DM threw another 4 to 6 encounters in not because the story needed it (it would make no sense in the story whatsoever) but because the game apparently had to have them.

Encounter with Sirius Black, defense of previous self against dementors then the rescue of Buckbeak? Sorry Harry, I know it doesn't make any sense but we're going to need you to have another 3 to 5 encounters before the day is done or things won't be balanced. Now Rand you did well leading the charge into Caemlyn and then defeating Rahvin but there will need to be at least four more trolloc attacks before you go to sleep because that's a good way to balance an edition. Hey good job fighting in that huge battle and then duelling Murtagh, Eragon - but I'm afraid your day is not even half done.

Neither Lotr, Harry Potter, Wheel of Time or Eragon is a game of D&D...the pacing works differently in non-interactive enviroment where you don't have to deal with balance between the characters with different capabilities and don't have spotlight only on one of them. How many bad GM threads with players complaining about the GM railorading and spotlight-stealing DMPCs are there? There's a vast difference between writting a story and playing a game.

Even then, LotR would work in D&D with variant rest rules from DMG (short rest is a day, long rest is a week or so): the hobbits and Aragorn get their first long rest in Rivendell, another in Lothlorien after dungeon crawl in Moria (how many encounters were there?), then in Rohan (ugh...can't remember the name of the Theoden's city) before Helm's Deep, after Saruman's defeat and in Minas Tirith before the finish...wait, that fits almost perfectly! And in a setting where you don't have explicit short and long rest resources, hit dice and all that mechanical ****. They may had a little too much short rests, though, but with no warlock or a monk, it doesn't make much difference.

I don't know anything about the Wheel of Time other then recognising some names, but both Harry Potter and Eragon are centered on a single protagonist (with bunch of support NPCs)...if you play solo games, you can ignore most of the encounter building restriction, because you are already at disadvantage compared to your enemies, and there's nobody to overshadow...and again, the "mechanics" works vastly differently from D&D...Harry doesn't have spell slots, and Eragon was out of comission for a long time after the fight with Durza.

[hymer]

(ugh...can't remember the name of the Theoden's city)

Meduseld is the hall, Edoras is the town. :smallsmile:

[Lines]

Neither Lotr, Harry Potter, Wheel of Time or Eragon is a game of D&D...the pacing works differently in non-interactive enviroment where you don't have to deal with balance between the characters with different capabilities and don't have spotlight only on one of them. How many bad GM threads with players complaining about the GM railorading and spotlight-stealing DMPCs are there? There's a vast difference between writting a story and playing a game.
It's not about that, it's the fact that you'll notice that in none of those did you regularly have 6-8 encounters - that many fits in almost no story. There is no reason for it to be the baseline in 5e, which is an edition about being as simple and covering as many bases as possible.


Even then, LotR would work in D&D with variant rest rules from DMG (short rest is a day, long rest is a week or so): the hobbits and Aragorn get their first long rest in Rivendell, another in Lothlorien after dungeon crawl in Moria (how many encounters were there?), then in Rohan (ugh...can't remember the name of the Theoden's city) before Helm's Deep, after Saruman's defeat and in Minas Tirith before the finish...wait, that fits almost perfectly! And in a setting where you don't have explicit short and long rest resources, hit dice and all that mechanical ****. They may had a little too much short rests, though, but with no warlock or a monk, it doesn't make much difference.

I don't know anything about the Wheel of Time other then recognising some names, but both Harry Potter and Eragon are centered on a single protagonist (with bunch of support NPCs)...if you play solo games, you can ignore most of the encounter building restriction, because you are already at disadvantage compared to your enemies, and there's nobody to overshadow...and again, the "mechanics" works vastly differently from D&D...Harry doesn't have spell slots, and Eragon was out of comission for a long time after the fight with Durza.
Why are the rests suddenly being changed up? D&D has always let you recover after 8 hours, I shouldn't need to change that to fit in with their horrible ideas.

[Flashy]

I shouldn't need to change that to fit in with their horrible ideas.

There's basically no 5e rest system that represents LotR well, considering gandalf casts maybe four spell's in the entire trilogy and tries to fight a Balor hand to hand.

[joaber]

Funny how none of pure casters have a feature as good as Eldritch Knight or Arcana Trickster to debuff ST. Ok, is probably to avoid use this in high lvl spells, but come on...

[Zalabim]

Funny how none of pure casters have a feature as good as Eldritch Knight or Arcana Trickster to debuff ST. Ok, is probably to avoid use this in high lvl spells, but come on...

As much as I will bag on the design for Sorcerers, they are pure casters. If you really want one target to fail a save against this one spell right now, you'll hardly find a better caster than a wild mage to make it happen, though it can't be done many times per day.

[JackPhoenix]

Why are the rests suddenly being changed up? D&D has always let you recover after 8 hours, I shouldn't need to change that to fit in with their horrible ideas.

So, you're complaining that you can't recreate fantasy stories in a game that's not made for recreating those stories, but when the game offers you a solution to that problem, it's a bad thing, because it's not a default rule? I've played D20 Modern modified to W40K game...should I complaint about the system because Space Marines, bolters etc. weren't default part of the rules and had to be homebrewed, not even included in one of the core books as variant rules?

[joaber]

As much as I will bag on the design for Sorcerers, they are pure casters. If you really want one target to fail a save against this one spell right now, you'll hardly find a better caster than a wild mage to make it happen, though it can't be done many times per day.

agree. Limited use, but efficient. Portent can be even more efficient, but even more limited.
a rogue9/wild mage 11 looks good to, unfortunetely you only have 6th lvl spell slot, but will be a great mass suggestion, lol.

[Lines]

So, you're complaining that you can't recreate fantasy stories in a game that's not made for recreating those stories, but when the game offers you a solution to that problem, it's a bad thing, because it's not a default rule? I've played D20 Modern modified to W40K game...should I complaint about the system because Space Marines, bolters etc. weren't default part of the rules and had to be homebrewed, not even included in one of the core books as variant rules?

No, I'm complaining that for some reason the game decided to assume 6 to 8 combat encounters per day, an amount that fits in a small minority of days in most stories someone would want to run. They had this crap solved back in 4e, they've literally gone backwards in terms of design (especially true vis a vis martial options and the warlord, too)

[JackPhoenix]

No, I'm complaining that for some reason the game decided to assume 6 to 8 combat encounters per day, an amount that fits in a small minority of days in most stories someone would want to run. They had this crap solved back in 4e, they've literally gone backwards in terms of design (especially true vis a vis martial options and the warlord, too)

6 to 8 encounters per long rest, not per day. Having long rest=day is just the simplest solution. And different people like different things...I have no problem with the number of encounters in 5e, but I think the best thing about 4e's AEDU class system is that it's gone now and it hopefully won't ever show up again.

[RulesJD]

You're also forgetting many other balancing factors on saves vs attacks.

The primary being Magical Resistance (most high level CR enemies have it) to make it even harder to get them to fail their save, and Conditional Immunities that make failure not matter because your Hold Monster target is immune to Paralyze.

In terms of dishing out pure damage, Martials are almost always going to be better outside of a few circumstances and DM decisions (Animate Objects magical or not, etc). However, casters are going to be better at EFFECTS, which often is much more important than damage anyways.

[Malifice]

No, I'm complaining that for some reason the game decided to assume 6 to 8 combat encounters per day, an amount that fits in a small minority of days in most stories someone would want to run. They had this crap solved back in 4e, they've literally gone backwards in terms of design (especially true vis a vis martial options and the warlord, too)

The game gives you a solution to this: the longer rest variant.

It supports 0-3 encounters per day, allows healing over night (via short rest) and makes long rest resources need to be stretched out until you get a weeks rest (i.e. can find a town to rest up in).

And 6-8 encounters is standard fare for a dungeon/ ruin environment - which takes up the majority of encounter locations in almost every single one of the hundreds of published adventures since 1E (including all the adventures for 5e to date), and is pretty implicit in the title of the game (Dungeons and Dragons).

If you prefer 4e's system of resource management, play that game instead. When it comes to 5e the game assumes that your party is getting 6-8 encounters and 2 short rests per AD. Whether AD's in your game are actual in game 'days' or something else, is entirely up to you as the DM.

If you vary from this expectation, then the classes and encounter difficulty get out of whack. You can still play this way (without changing anything up with how rests work) but know that it messes with class balance and encounter difficulty. Youll likely have to throw 'super deadly' encounters at your party to challenge them, the game will become far more swingy as a result, and TPKs will become much more frequent (also, youre just encouraging nova tactics and the 5 minute AD that is so loathed by so many). Additionally youre just reinforcing the class disparity that the shorter AD creates by upping the difficulty. Short rest dependent classes that would struggle in a single encounter AD, struggle more with increased difficulty encounters.

I cant stress this enough; sticking to the 6-8/ 2 SR AD for around 50 percent of the time as your baseline and the game runs perfectly. Classes and encounters are balanced and the game is tense, fun and a real challenge.

[Lines]

The game gives you a solution to this: the longer rest variant.

It supports 0-3 encounters per day, allows healing over night (via short rest) and makes long rest resources need to be stretched out until you get a weeks rest (i.e. can find a town to rest up in).

And 6-8 encounters is standard fare for a dungeon/ ruin environment - which takes up the majority of encounter locations in almost every single one of the hundreds of published adventures since 1E (including all the adventures for 5e to date), and is pretty implicit in the title of the game (Dungeons and Dragons).

If you prefer 4e's system of resource management, play that game instead. When it comes to 5e the game assumes that your party is getting 6-8 encounters and 2 short rests per AD. Whether AD's in your game are actual in game 'days' or something else, is entirely up to you as the DM.

If you vary from this expectation, then the classes and encounter difficulty get out of whack. You can still play this way (without changing anything up with how rests work) but know that it messes with class balance and encounter difficulty. Youll likely have to throw 'super deadly' encounters at your party to challenge them, the game will become far more swingy as a result, and TPKs will become much more frequent (also, youre just encouraging nova tactics and the 5 minute AD that is so loathed by so many). Additionally youre just reinforcing the class disparity that the shorter AD creates by upping the difficulty. Short rest dependent classes that would struggle in a single encounter AD, struggle more with increased difficulty encounters.

I cant stress this enough; sticking to the 6-8/ 2 SR AD for around 50 percent of the time as your baseline and the game runs perfectly. Classes and encounters are balanced and the game is tense, fun and a real challenge.

Question: Why? I'm not saying I want 4e's style of resource management, I'm saying last edition I could run 1 encounters or 10 and the players would still be balanced against each other, and this edition I can't. Don't really care how it happens, it just should have happened. You can give me several paragraphs about how I can adjust things around their bad ideas, but that doesn't stop them being bad ideas.

I'm aware that if I vary from the completely unreasonable expectation of 6-8 encounters every day then classes get out of whack. I know that, I'm just weirded out that you seem to be considering that my fault rather than a glaring design flaw.

[RickAllison]

Question: Why? I'm not saying I want 4e's style of resource management, I'm saying last edition I could run 1 encounters or 10 and the players would still be balanced against each other, and this edition I can't. Don't really care how it happens, it just should have happened. You can give me several paragraphs about how I can adjust things around their bad ideas, but that doesn't stop them being bad ideas.

I'm aware that if I vary from the completely unreasonable expectation of 6-8 encounters every day then classes get out of whack. I know that, I'm just weirded out that you seem to be considering that my fault rather than a glaring design flaw.

And we are "weirded out" that you complain about it, yet lambaste a variation in the rules included in the basic DMG given specifically to facilitate the kind of adventure you want. When the rules literally hand you a method that addresses your problem, you should probably consider it rather than criticizing it for not being the default. The 6-8 encounters were implemented so the different classes could retain the traditional feel rather than the complete overhaul of 4e that removed many unique aspects of the classes while still remaining balanced over the long-run (relatively speaking).

[Mellack]

Question: Why? I'm not saying I want 4e's style of resource management, I'm saying last edition I could run 1 encounters or 10 and the players would still be balanced against each other, and this edition I can't. Don't really care how it happens, it just should have happened. You can give me several paragraphs about how I can adjust things around their bad ideas, but that doesn't stop them being bad ideas.

I'm aware that if I vary from the completely unreasonable expectation of 6-8 encounters every day then classes get out of whack. I know that, I'm just weirded out that you seem to be considering that my fault rather than a glaring design flaw.

In last edition, if you only ran a single encounter or two in a day, it would get steamrolled. The same as it would being run in 5e. Getting to drop all your dailys ended a fight. The DMG 2 even said that a typical adventure day was 4 or 5 encounters, which is close to the 5e standard you seem to find so unreasonable.

[Lines]

In last edition, if you only ran a single encounter or two in a day, it would get steamrolled. The same as it would being run in 5e. Getting to drop all your dailys ended a fight. The DMG 2 even said that a typical adventure day was 4 or 5 encounters, which is close to the 5e standard you seem to find so unreasonable.

We're talking about inter party balance. If there are less encounters per day they can simply be harder, that's not difficult, the problem here is that 5e decided that its answer to different classes having different resource systems was 'every day you should have an unreasonable number of encounters in order to keep things balanced'. Dumbest part is balancing around 6-8, which I must repeat again really is a stupidly high number that doesn't fit in a huge number of stories - 3-5 would have been significantly more reasonable.

[Malifice]

Question: Why? I'm not saying I want 4e's style of resource management, I'm saying last edition I could run 1 encounters or 10 and the players would still be balanced against each other, and this edition I can't. Don't really care how it happens, it just should have happened. You can give me several paragraphs about how I can adjust things around their bad ideas, but that doesn't stop them being bad ideas.

What are you talking about? The game gives you options to vary the number of encounters per day. Its incorportated into the rules (longer rests).

Youre just choosing to ignore it.


I'm aware that if I vary from the completely unreasonable expectation of 6-8 encounters every day then classes get out of whack. I know that, I'm just weirded out that you seem to be considering that my fault rather than a glaring design flaw.

There is no design flaw! If the game was silent about it you could argue your case with me, but its not silent about it. It provides options right in the DMG.

Its also clear that you dont need to do 6-8 with 2 short rests religiously. Use it as the default with longer and shorter ADs (or less or more short rests) taking up other AD's. An AD featuring 6 encounters with 6 short rests favors Monks, BMs and Warlocks. Slot one of them into your campaign from time to time. Slot in a single encounter AD from time to time so your casters have the chance to shine. Stick to the 6-8/ 2 short rest as your baseline for about half the time (and its entirely a reasonable number of encounters for your standard dungeon, which is the centrepiece of almost every adventure published to date across all editions) and you'll be fine.

Yeah it requires more work as a DM (and thats a valid criticism) but it allows you to rotate the spotlight on different classes and PCs, and tweak the game to your liking, instead of the 'sameness' of 4e (which was one of the biggest criticisms levelled against it).

[Lines]

And we are "weirded out" that you complain about it, yet lambaste a variation in the rules included in the basic DMG given specifically to facilitate the kind of adventure you want. When the rules literally hand you a method that addresses your problem, you should probably consider it rather than criticizing it for not being the default. The 6-8 encounters were implemented so the different classes could retain the traditional feel rather than the complete overhaul of 4e that removed many unique aspects of the classes while still remaining balanced over the long-run (relatively speaking).

I lambaste it because that's not the kind of adventure I want. My problem is they for some reason decided to balance everything around 6-8 encounters between long rests, all your variant is doing is stretching out those 6-8 encounters and long rests. It literally has no effect on the problem, if you multiply two numbers by the same number you get the same ratio you started with.


What are you talking about? The game gives you options to vary the number of encounters per day. Its incorportated into the rules (longer rests).

Youre just choosing to ignore it.



There is no design flaw! If the game was silent about it you could argue your case with me, but its not silent about it. It provides options right in the DMG.

Its also clear that you dont need to do 6-8 with 2 short rests religiously. Use it as the default with longer and shorter ADs (or less or more short rests) taking up other AD's. An AD featuring 6 encounters with 6 short rests favors Monks, BMs and Warlocks. Slot one of them into your campaign from time to time. Slot in a single encounter AD from time to time. Stick to the 6-8/ 2 short rest as your baseline for about half the time (and its entirely a reasonable number of encounters for your standard dungeon, which is the centrepiece of almost every adventure published to date across all editions) and you'll be fine.

It provides options that as stated have absolutely no bearing on the problem.

[Malifice]

It provides options that as stated have absolutely no bearing on the problem.

Whats your problem then?

[RickAllison]

I lambaste it because that's not the kind of adventure I want. My problem is they for some reason decided to balance everything around 6-8 encounters between long rests, all your variant is doing is stretching out those 6-8 encounters and long rests. It literally has no effect on the problem, if you multiply two numbers by the same number you get the same ratio you started with.



It provides options that as stated have absolutely no bearing on the problem.

Then what is the problem? Clearly explain the nature of your problem and the community can help either address it, or even point you to where in the DMG you can find your answer. We just need that problem to be extra clear :smallsmile:

EDIT: Shadowmonk'd, by Malifice.

[Lines]

Whats your problem then?

Then what is the problem? Clearly explain the nature of your problem and the community can help either address it, or even point you to where in the DMG you can find your answer. We just need that problem to be extra clear :smallsmile:

EDIT: Shadowmonk'd, by Malifice.

One in the game, one in the community. The community problem is people are making excuses for WotC bad game design - I like a lot of parts of 5e, but that doesn't mean I can't acknowledge the bits that are done poorly. For some reason people defend it and bend over backward trying to accommodate a clearly bad idea, which encourages the designers to be lazy since if they just slap in a crap solution - like, say, telling us we should be running 6-8 encounters per day - we'll not only accept it, but try to pretend it isn't a bad idea.

The in game one is the obvious - how to make all classes roughly equal in utility. My slapdash solution has been to designate a short rest as 5 minutes and reduce a few totals in exchange, like making the monk ki points go from 1 to 12 instead of 1 to 20 and giving them an actual capstone. Seems to have worked pretty well so far, but if there's a more elegant solution out there I'd love to hear it.

[RickAllison]

One in the game, one in the community. The community problem is people are making excuses for WotC bad game design - I like a lot of parts of 5e, but that doesn't mean I can't acknowledge the bits that are done poorly. For some reason people defend it and bend over backward trying to accommodate a clearly bad idea, which encourages the designers to be lazy since if they just slap in a crap solution - like, say, telling us we should be running 6-8 encounters per day - we'll not only accept it, but try to pretend it isn't a bad idea.

The in game one is the obvious - how to make all classes roughly equal in utility. My slapdash solution has been to designate a short rest as 5 minutes and reduce a few totals in exchange, like making the monk ki points go from 1 to 12 instead of 1 to 20 and giving them an actual capstone. Seems to have worked pretty well so far, but if there's a more elegant solution out there I'd love to hear it.

For the community, its because those who endorse it actually enjoy it. Recently in my D&D group, we ran a castle that was in that range of encounters and it took three sessions. It lends itself to extended adventures where waiting for eight hours is (realistically) too dangerous to do frequently. A bigger problem with the whole thing is Leomund's Tiny Hut, as it removes a large part of the risk for the party (with a lesser chance for simply waiting in ambush outside the hut) and so invalidates that aspect of balance. For those running the longer, in-depth adventures it makes much more sense.

If that's your solution, I would definitely run Sorlock. Use all the extra 'Lock slots to generate massive amounts of spell slots until exhaustion becomes a problem. In the hour of a normal short rest, I could actually start generating 5th-level slots! I like that ruling :smallwink:

[Lines]

For the community, its because those who endorse it actually enjoy it. Recently in my D&D group, we ran a castle that was in that range of encounters and it took three sessions. It lends itself to extended adventures where waiting for eight hours is (realistically) too dangerous to do frequently. A bigger problem with the whole thing is Leomund's Tiny Hut, as it removes a large part of the risk for the party (with a lesser chance for simply waiting in ambush outside the hut) and so invalidates that aspect of balance. For those running the longer, in-depth adventures it makes much more sense.

If that's your solution, I would definitely run Sorlock. Use all the extra 'Lock slots to generate massive amounts of spell slots until exhaustion becomes a problem. In the hour of a normal short rest, I could actually start generating 5th-level slots! I like that ruling :smallwink:

I put a cap on conversion for just that instance =D

[Malifice]

One in the game, one in the community. The community problem is people are making excuses for WotC bad game design

There is no bad game design. They set a default number of encounters after extensive playtesting, and then give you options around this default. Longer (or shorter) rests, slower healing etc.

This is the exact point covered above that you denied being a problem for you two posts up. Youre just being intentionally obtuse now.


I like a lot of parts of 5e, but that doesn't mean I can't acknowledge the bits that are done poorly. For some reason people defend it and bend over backward trying to accommodate a clearly bad idea, which encourages the designers to be lazy since if they just slap in a crap solution - like, say, telling us we should be running 6-8 encounters per day - we'll not only accept it, but try to pretend it isn't a bad idea.

It's not a bad idea. A bad idea is the 5 minute adventuring day which 3E and 4E encouraged, and was loathed by all.

Mixing resource recovery (some classes being short rest and others being long rest dependent) makes it so the certain classes benefit more from longer days, while others benefit more from shorter days. This lets you as DM mix up your adventuring days and overall (over the length of the campaign) balance is maintained. Some ADs will be longer. Some will be shorter.


The in game one is the obvious - how to make all classes roughly equal in utility. My slapdash solution has been to designate a short rest as 5 minutes and reduce a few totals in exchange, like making the monk ki points go from 1 to 12 instead of 1 to 20 and giving them an actual capstone. Seems to have worked pretty well so far, but if there's a more elegant solution out there I'd love to hear it.

Firstly they are 'equal in utility' if your campaign features around 6-8 encounters with 2 short rests per long rest around 50 percent of the time, with the other 50 percent of the time varying between more encounters between long rests or less encounters between rests.

I struggle to see how this pacing cant be maintained. If your party are getting less than 6 encounters (inlcuding traps, social encounters, evironmental hazards and combat encounters) in a standard dungeon/ ruin, then your dungeons are very sparse and boring environments indeed.

Look at published adventures to date. Each chapter is a seperate dungeon/ ruin/ keep environment that the players are there to storm/ explore/ defend, featuring several encounters in relatively close proximity (temporaly or spatially) to each other.

If you want a houseruled solution that ups short rest dependent classes so they can complete with nova striking long rest classes like casters and the Paladin, simply make all short rest recovered powers (wild shape, action surge, superiority dice, second wind, Ki, warlock spell slots, channel divinity etc) long rest recovered powers, only with 3 x as many uses per long rest.

So a BM Fighter 3 gets 3 x action surges, 3 x second winds and 12 x sup dice per long rest. A Warlock 11 gets 9 slots (of 5th level) per long rest. A druid can assume wild shape 6/ day. Etc.

Alternativley leave the classes as they are, and decouple resting from resource recovery. Allow a short and long 'rest' recharge at milestones in the game (say.. a short rest recharge every 2 encounters and a long rest recharge after 6). This will make your game much more 4E in feel.

Finally, if your issue stems from only getting 0-3 encounters per adventuring day, simply use the longer rest variant as provided in the DMG.

[MaxWilson]

You're also forgetting many other balancing factors on saves vs attacks.

The primary being Magical Resistance (most high level CR enemies have it) to make it even harder to get them to fail their save, and Conditional Immunities that make failure not matter because your Hold Monster target is immune to Paralyze.

One of the wackier things about 5E's CR system is that Legendary Resistance for e.g. resisting paralyzation costs CR budget, but being outright immune to paralyzation is... free?!? Ditto for various other conditions.

[RickAllison]

One of the wackier things about 5E's CR system is that Legendary Resistance for e.g. resisting paralyzation costs CR budget, but being outright immune to paralyzation is... free?!? Ditto for various other conditions.

This is so true. Of course, being able to inflict the conditions adds nothing to the CR as well. Where normally a wizard could be terrifying because he is able to inflict incredibly painful statuses, the highest CR wizard is the one who spends his high-level slots running Meteor Swarm, S8 Bigby's Hand, and two S7 Disintegrations (I'm still working on the optimal formula, but this seems to work well).

[SharkForce]

This is so true. Of course, being able to inflict the conditions adds nothing to the CR as well. Where normally a wizard could be terrifying because he is able to inflict incredibly painful statuses, the highest CR wizard is the one who spends his high-level slots running Meteor Swarm, S8 Bigby's Hand, and two S7 Disintegrations (I'm still working on the optimal formula, but this seems to work well).

also precast haste. it boosts your AC :)

[RickAllison]

also precast haste. it boosts your AC :)

But haste is a concentration spell that competes with Bigby's Hand. Haste boosts AC by two points (so +1 defensive CR), while Bigby's Hand gives +45 DPR which with the formula of using the average across three attacks to account for variable DPR culminates in a difference of 3 offensive CR, a net loss of 1 CR total. Might be even worse at lower CRs, actually

[RulesJD]

But haste is a concentration spell that competes with Bigby's Hand. Haste boosts AC by two points (so +1 defensive CR), while Bigby's Hand gives +45 DPR which with the formula of using the average across three attacks to account for variable DPR culminates in a difference of 3 offensive CR, a net loss of 1 CR total. Might be even worse at lower CRs, actually

Yeah, take a look at Animate Objects. At a level 8 slot that's 16 Small objects. Damage potential of 16d4+64 (104 total), depending on how many you can get to hit. As a Bonus action. Animate Objects is pretty much the be-all, end-all of Bonus action uses for a Wizard if you want to do damage.

[RickAllison]

Yeah, take a look at Animate Objects. At a level 8 slot that's 16 Small objects. Damage potential of 16d4+64 (104 total), depending on how many you can get to hit. As a Bonus action. Animate Objects is pretty much the be-all, end-all of Bonus action uses for a Wizard if you want to do damage.

I was not aware of that. Bigby's Hand is probably more reliable, but CR cares not a whit. It assumes that the attacks hit for average hit dice and that AoE hits two people (based on Breath Attack rules), so that works perfectly! Thanks!

EDIT: So my preliminary estimate doesn't account for all variables, but that boosts the offensive CR rating up 3 from Bigby's!

[RulesJD]

I was not aware of that. Bigby's Hand is probably more reliable, but CR cares not a whit. It assumes that the attacks hit for average hit dice and that AoE hits two people (based on Breath Attack rules), so that works perfectly! Thanks!

EDIT: So my preliminary estimate doesn't account for all variables, but that boosts the offensive CR rating up 3 from Bigby's!

Also, the objects are Constructs, and as such can do fun things like provide the Help function. So task 2-3 to work with your Rogue/other big hitters to provide advantage, etc)

[RickAllison]

Also, the objects are Constructs, and as such can do fun things like provide the Help function. So task 2-3 to work with your Rogue/other big hitters to provide advantage, etc)

I feel we are dragging the forum off-topic :smallbiggrin: but that is awesome. I feel like the optimal thing in that case is to just have a bag of 10-16 ball bearings and just be able to toss them whereever you wish before casting.

EDIT: By the way, I greatly appreciate your suggestion for increasing the damage output. With it, I now have my Glabrezu Bladesinger at CR 29 (well, 28.5, but MM rounds up).

Size: Large, 5.5 (d10) hit dice
Bladesinger 20
Str 20, Dex 20, Con 21, Int 20, Wis 18, Cha 16 (3 ASIs for +4 Dex, +1 Int, and +1 Wis, with Resilient [Dex])
AC 30 (15 [natural armor] + Dex + Int + 5 [Shield])
HP: 367 (35d10+175)
Several natural resistances, though those don't contribute to CR at higher levels.
Attack Bonus: +14 (Prof [9] + Str [5])
DPR: 296.33 (Multiattack allows 2X pincer attacks every turn for 42 total [2*2d10+2*(Str+Int)] followed by a spell, Animate Objects at S8 for 104 [16*(1d4+4)] as bonus action each turn for a base of 146 DPR; Meteor Swarm for 280 (2*(20d6+20d6)), and 2X S7 Disintegrate for 85.5 each)
Resilient [Dex] brings his saving throw bonuses to 5, so +4 effective AC. +2 effective AC for Magic Resistance, so effective AC is 36.
Defensive CR is 28, offensive CR is 29, so total CR is 28.5.
If having Greater Invisibility counts as Superior Invisibility, then CR becomes 29, which is still short of becoming Tiamat herself. However, the build still has one extra ASI/feat to take, and I might have missed some way to boost the build over the last little bit. Ideas?

[SharkForce]

well, i wouldn't use ball bearings (if they can travel along the ground, they don't get a fly speed, and ball bearings can just roll around). but yes, generally speaking, it is a good idea to carry around a bunch of tiny inexpensive objects.

[RickAllison]

well, i wouldn't use ball bearings (if they can travel along the ground, they don't get a fly speed, and ball bearings can just roll around). but yes, generally speaking, it is a good idea to carry around a bunch of tiny inexpensive objects.

Got it, so maybe a bag of silverware! I think we should let the OP have his thread back. I added the new information to a different thread (Marilith: Class Levels, since I haven't figured out how to change the title). No need to block up this one with unrelated theory-crafting.

[joaber]

get some ally with Crusader's Mantle for more damage. Why not?